Talk:Criticism of evolutionary psychology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Psychology (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

'Secrets of the Tribe' link[edit]

is dead. TheNuszAbides (talk) 05:02, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Subsequent petition to blank the page and make it a redirect[edit]

Drawing from the heated debates and edit wars in the talk section, and due to the organization of the material of this article, it seems some contributors are using the word “Criticism” as an excuse for showcasing opinions biased towards a particular viewpoint. Read through the article and the bias will become apparent. This entire article is overloaded with rebuttals tantamount to emotional bickering. The resources (e.g. interviews) and quotations (see Testability) present in the article incite an emotional response to these critiques against Evolutionary Psychology. This raises the question of whether or not this article represents a neutral point of view and should stand scrutiny. Specific problems:

  1. The formatting of each individual section suggests contributions were made primarily by a single author.
  2. The formatting of individual sections makes discerning individual viewpoints difficult and tiresome.
  3. The History of the debate section contributes nothing to the article, much less does it explain the history of the debate (rather, it points to some other work). The inclusion of books in this section is unnecessary as their arguments are not elucidated. Furthermore, only the books purported to be rebuttals have links in the references.
  4. Ambiguity in sections such as Fear and phobias as innate or learned does not lend an accessible conclusion to an average reader about what that particular data say about evolutionary psychology.
  5. The constant use of “critics” as a subject confuses the reader. This is because the sheer amount of information given as rebuttals confounds the subject of the article, which informs the next point.
  6. Is this article really talking about criticisms of evolutionary psychology or just defending it by offering a rebuttal for every critique?
  7. There is a dearth of criticism from feminist scholars and women scientists in general.
  8. There is a disproportionate amount of quotations from proponents of evolutionary psychology vs. their critics.
  9. On a more meta-level, the main contributors of this article have not rectified the issues that have been present since 2008, which are presented here for convenience:
    1. This article needs additional citations for verification. (June 2008)
    2. This article's lead section may not adequately summarize key points of its contents. (July 2011)
    3. This article possibly contains original research. (July 2011)
    4. This article may be unbalanced towards certain viewpoints. (June 2008)
  10. Unnecessary elaborations are present (e.g. explaining “just-so” stories in Testability when a link is provided, defining evolutionary psychology in Reductionism and determinism, etc.). This article too often tries to explain Evolutionary Psychology’s basis (in addition to defining other terms) when article(s) for that already exist.

The Empirical evidence section is the least emotionally charged. It is concise, factual, and not corrupted by quotes (and therefore opinions) from experts of the field of study this article is purportedly critiquing. I do not condemn the usage of quotes or interviews as resources, but they seem to be placed to elicit an emotionally-charged rebuttal and result in a disparate representation of the proponents of Evolutionary Psychology. I argue that these problems are important and should be taken as a call to action to heavily reformat this page or get rid of it. Wolfpad4 (talk) 05:35, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

A reading of WP:CRIT is probably first on the agenda here. Per WP:CRIT:
"Separate articles devoted to controversies.
Articles dedicated to controversies about a topic are generally discouraged, for many of the same reasons discussed above for criticism-related material. Articles dedicated to a controversy may be appropriate if the reliable sources on the topic discuss the controversies as an independent topic. Examples of articles devoted to a controversy include Whaling controversy, Global warming controversy... "
...This article qualifies as an "independent topic," as noted by the many cited books and articles devoted to the controversy itself.
"Articles should include both positive and negative viewpoints from reliable sources..."
This includes Criticism articles -- which are not to present only criticisms without rebuttals.
Controversies do tend to be "emotionally charged." But that is only a problem if a statement is included that is not properly referenced, is just an ad-hominem attack, or is clearly inappropriate. I don't see any such statements here. No doubt some statements, pro or con, may generate emotional reactions in readers with strong opinions either way, but that is irrelevant at WP.
If you would like to improve the article, I suggest taking a gradual, step-by-step approach. Propose a particular change here at the Talk page, get some feedback from others, and work collaboratively. Memills (talk) 04:03, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
This page is just a laundry list of grievances against evolutionary psych. It looks like a pov fork to sidestep notability and due weight issues on the main page. It does relatively little to establish the relative prevalence of majority and minority views. Someone needs to figure out what of all this belongs on the main page, then blank the rest. Rhoark (talk) 20:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree this article is a POV fork. I believe the name should be changed to Reception of evolutionary psychology. Waters.Justin (talk) 15:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
In agreement. This page reads like a bulleted list, sans bullets. Before a revote to move, it needs to be condensed, and there should be a consensus on what's worth keeping on the current page; then decide if what remains deserves a full page. To me, the only 'controversy' might include the reception of the male-fitness rape study. There are so many opposing cases here involving the interpretation of an individual, whereas "evolutionary psychologists" is used 37 times on the page. Aside from a handful of opposing academics, the opponents are rarely (if ever) cited. This page is one giant [Who?] tag. Event Nexus (talk) 23:32, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

References from above[edit]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Criticism of evolutionary psychology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:10, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Criticism of evolutionary psychology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)